The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 24 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Spacing Effects in Learning: A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention
Open accessAbstract
To achieve enduring retention, people must usually study information on multiple occasions. How does the timing of study events affect retention? Prior research has examined this issue only in a spotty fashion, usually with very short time intervals. In a study aimed at characterizing spacing effects over significant durations, more than 1,350 individuals were taught a set of facts and--after a gap of up to 3.5 months--given a review. A final test was administered at a further delay of up to 1 year. At any given test delay, an increase in the interstudy gap at first increased, and then gradually reduced, final test performance. The optimal gap increased as test delay increased. However, when measured as a proportion of test delay, the optimal gap declined from about 20 to 40% of a 1-week test delay to about 5 to 10% of a 1-year test delay. The interaction of gap and test delay implies that many educational practices are highly inefficient.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
19 Own result · 8 Own interpretation · 5 No full text of the sources · 5 Own method · 3 Sources not found · 2 Partly supported · 2 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Several studies involving modest time intervals ranging from minutes to days have found that memory at the final test is best for intermediate gap durations (e.g., Balota, Duchek, & Paullin, 1989;Glenberg, 1976;Glenberg & Lehmann, 1980;Young, 1966; see Cepeda et al., 2006, for a meta-analysis focused on this point).”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning: A Temporal Ridgeline of Optimal Retention
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Balota, Duchek, & Paullin, 1989
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Glenberg, 1976 source
- Supportedcites Cepeda et al., 2006 source
The General Discussion (p. 11) reports that, for a given retention interval, an intermediate, non-zero inter-study interval maximized final-test accuracy: longer gaps eventually reduced it. The within-study analysis (p. 9) identifies several studies with results consistent with this pattern, including Balota et al., Glenberg, and Glenberg and Lehmann. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Other distributed practice theories, such as encoding variability (Glenberg, 1979) and study-phase retrieval (Murray, 1983) are potentially consistent with the basic results seen in Figure 3.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Theoretical Implications
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Glenberg, 1979 source
Glenberg’s introduction (p. 1) describes his account of spacing effects in terms of variable encoding, and the General Discussion (p. 15) says an encoding-variability theory could account for several spacing phenomena. The citation identifies the theory; whether it fits the citing paper’s Figure 3 is the citing authors’ own qualified assessment. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites Murray, 1983
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At any given retention interval, an increase in the inter-study gap at first increased, and then gradually reduced, test performance.”
- Also stated in: § Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983). · boosted
“For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Abstract
boosteddirectn = 1,350- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983). · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Results Figure 3 shows the effect of gap on recall and recognition for each of the four different retention intervals, for the subjects who completed all the phases of the study.For each retention interval, final performance always rose initially with increasing gap and then fell as gap was further increased.The effects of gap were very large in magnitude: For a fixed amount of study time, the optimal gap provided a 64% increase, d = 1.1, in final recall, and a 26% increase, d = 1.5, in final recognition, as compared to a zero-day gap (in the present article, d values refer to the comparison of zeroday versus optimal gap).For the RIs of 7, 35, 70, and 350 days, the optimal gaps (of those included in the study) were 1, 11, 21, and 21 days, respectively, for recall data, and 1, 7, 7, and 21 days, respectively, for recognition data.All of these findings are in good agreement with the lab benchmark dataset, which, with its RI of 6 months, lay about where it would be expected to between the RI = 70 and RI = 350 conditionsdespite the fact that the laboratory study fixed session 2 exposure duration and the current study did not.(Both studies provided a fixed number of relearning trials.)For 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, percentage improvements in recall for optimal versus zeroday gaps were 10, 59, 111, and 77%-t(124) = 6.5, p rep = .99,d = 1.3; t(111) = 8.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.6; t(102) = 8.6, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 3.9, p rep = .99,d = 0.9, respectively.For recognition data, percentage improvements for optimal versus zero-day gaps were 1, 10, 31, and 60%-t(124) = 2.3, p rep = .99,d = 0.7; t(136) = 7.5, p rep = .99,d = In Press, Psychological Science Spacing Effects in Learning 5 1.5; t(112) = 8.7, p rep = .99,d = 1.7; t(68) = 7.9, p rep = .99,d = 2.1 for 7, 35, 70, and 350 day RIs, respectively.Estimated optimal gap values rise as retention interval is increased, and these depart noticeably from the fixed ratio of retention interval suggested by some earlier researchers based on much shorter-term studies (Crowder, 1976;Murray, 1983).
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
- Probably not a substantial claim. 6
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A recent review of distributed practice studies involving verbal recall (Cepeda et al., 2006) examined more than 400 papers.However, only about a dozen of these looked at retention intervals as long as one day, with just a handful examining retention intervals longer than one week.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning 2
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Cepeda et al., 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The optimum gap value was about 20% of the test delay for delays of a few weeks, falling to about 5% when delay was one year.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Abstract
plaincorrelationaln = 1,350- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Figure 4, for example, the optimal gap for RI = 350 equals 23 days, which is just 7% of the RI.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, for any gap duration, recall performance must decline as a function of RI (i.e., test delay) in a negatively accelerated fashion in order to produce the familiar forgetting curve consistent with more than 100 years of memory findings.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The forgetting curve is negatively accelerated (information loss per unit time gradually shrinks).
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results presented here document the existence of enormous and non-monotonic spacing effects that unfold over very long periods of time, with study time equated across conditions.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exploration of the data indicated that a number of other functions can also provide quite decent fits to the data, with various tradeoffs between interpretability of parameters and simplicity of the function, and we do not contend that this function offers a uniquely accurate characterization of the surface-merely a reasonable one.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were 26 gap-by-retention interval combinations, and each subject was randomly assigned to one of these.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Stimuli and materials.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were also no detectable differences between the groups in age, gender, number of obscure facts known before beginning the study, or a wide array of background and demographic characteristics.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Subjects.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We held constant the number of restudy trials in the second study session, thus allowing us to look at the effect of gap apart from the amount of time provided for restudy.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning 2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The results showed that increasing the inter-study spacing out to 56 days improved performance (Figure 2).”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning 2
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bahrick et al., 1993 source
plaindirectn = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“The non-monotonic pattern noted in short-term studies was indeed found: Recall success (for both facts and names) was best for a 1-month gap, with much worse recall for shorter gaps and slightly poorer recall for longer ones.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Preliminary Data
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Cepeda et al., 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelationaln = 150- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, 56 days is actually a relatively short proportion of the extremely long retention intervals used in Bahrick et al.'s study, and it is this ratio that is probably most critical, as will emerge below.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning 2
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bahrick et al., 1993 source
hedgedcorrelationaln = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Non-completion rates increased at the longer delays, as one would expect in any multi-year study (Table 1)”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Subjects.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As described in the Appendix, the reliability and validity of internet data collection has become increasingly clear in recent years.”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Spacing Effects in Learning 2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Reips, 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gosling et al., 2004 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The validity of internet testing has been well supported in recent reviews (Gosling et al., 2004), with excellent correspondence between results obtained with internet samples are results obtained in the laboratory (e.g., Birnbaum, 1999;Krantz & Dalal, 2000;McGraw, Tew, & Williams, 2000;Reips, 2002).”
§ OPTIMIZING RETENTION USING DISTRIBUTED PRACTICE Spacing effects in learning: A temporal ridgeline of optimal retention > Appendix: Comments and Validity of Internet Memory Testing Data
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The 32 obscure trivia facts and object names used in the study are representative of the kinds of information people need to learn and retain in educational settings.
“Stimuli consisted of 32 obscure but true trivia facts (e.g.,”
The paper relies on this without support.
The forgetting curve is negatively accelerated (information loss per unit time gradually shrinks).
“The amount of information lost per unit of time gradually shrinks, producing the well-known increasingly gradual forgetting curve.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Working memory operates on a time scale of seconds or minutes.
“Working memory operates on a time scale of seconds or minutes, whereas gap effects are seen on a scale of day and weeks (optimal gap is several weeks, for longer retention intervals).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 26 gap-by-retention interval combinations adequately sample the retention surface.
“To properly characterize the interaction of gap and retention interval, the current study combines various gap and RI values, for a total of 26 different conditions.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“The optimal ratio of spacing and retention interval should be 10-30%.”
From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT: AN EFL CLASSROOM STUDY (2022) · cites this paper as Cepeda et al., 2008
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, such research also emphasizes that the effect of retention intervals on the distributed practice advantage does not continuously increase as the retention interval increases (Cepeda et al., 2008).”
From The Distributed Practice Effect on Classroom Learning: A Meta-Analytic Review of Applied Research (2025) · cites this paper as Cepeda et al., 2008
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“There are two issues: (1) learning is not spaced-out despite evidence that enduring retention is achieved through substantial gaps in practice (gaps of months to achieve knowledge lasting years) (Cepeda et al., 2008);”
From Using version control to document genuine effort in written assignments: a protocol with examples for universities (2023) · cites this paper as Cepeda et al., 2008
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“According to cognitive psychologists (Cepeda et al., 2008;Rohrer & Pashler, 2007), the optimal spacing depends on the retention interval (i.e., the timing of delayed posttest).”
From MASSED TASK REPETITION IS A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD FOR FLUENCY DEVELOPMENT: AN EFL CLASSROOM STUDY (2022) · cites this paper as Cepeda et al., 2008
Citations
Cites
From dissertation abstracts international
(1974) · ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics · doi:10.1145/988616.988619 · Cited by 12,208
Editorial Office (1997) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1381/096089297765555359 · Cited by 3,941
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.59.2.93 · Cited by 2,932
Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis.
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.354 · Cited by 1,888
Self-citationSchmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x · Cited by 1,582
Principles of Learning and Memory
Murdock, B. B., & Crowder, R. G. (1977) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1422060 · Cited by 1,306
Standards for Internet-Based Experimenting
Reips, U. (2002) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1026/1618-3169.49.4.243 · Cited by 878
Analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall.
Rundus, D. (1971) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0031185 · Cited by 797
On interpreting the effects of repetition: Solving a problem versus remembering a solution
Jacoby, L. L. (1978) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(78)90393-6 · Cited by 667
Standards for Internet-Based Experimenting
Reips, U.-D. (2002) · Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1026//1618-3169.49.4.243 · Cited by 469
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Murray J.T., 1983, Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 3058
- Young J.L., 1966, Dissertation Abstracts International, 27, 3699
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 625
Retention and Transfer of Cognitive Bias Mitigation Interventions: A Systematic Literature Study
Korteling, J. E., Gerritsma, J. Y. J., & Toet, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629354 · Cited by 58
Knoblauch, A., Körner, E., Körner, U., & Sommer, F. T. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0096485 · Cited by 43
Jones, C. D., & Reutzel, D. R. (2012) · Reading Psychology · doi:10.1080/02702711.2010.545260 · Cited by 44
A REVIEW OF LABORATORY STUDIES OF ADULT SECOND LANGUAGE VOCABULARY TRAINING
Rice, C. A., & Tokowicz, N. (2019) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263119000500 · Cited by 52
Faulkner, B., Johnson‐Glauch, N., Choi, D. S., et al. (2020) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20344 · Cited by 44
Gurung, R. A. R., & Burns, K. (2019) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3507 · Cited by 42
Morphew, J., da Silva, M. R., Herman, G. L., & West, M. (2019) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3605 · Cited by 44
Passing the test: Improving Learning Gains by Balancing Spacing and Testing Effects
van Rijn, H., van Maanen, L., van Woudenberg, M., Hoses, A., Peebles, D., & Cooper, R. (2009) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · Cited by 42
Input spacing and the learning of L2 vocabulary in a classroom context
Rogers, J., & Cheung, A. (2018) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168818805251 · Cited by 43
Lipowsky, F. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-61403-7_4 · Cited by 63
Lameris, A. L. L., Hoenderop, J. G. J., Bindels, R. J. M., & Eijsvogels, T. M. H. (2015) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0351-0 · Cited by 38
Khajah, M. M., Lindsey, R., & Mozer, M. C. (2014) · Topics in Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/tops.12077 · Cited by 38
Goossens, N. A. M. C., Camp, G., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Tabbers, H. K., Bouwmeester, S., & Zwaan, R. A. (2016) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3245 · Cited by 40
Divis, K., & Benjamin, A. S. (2014) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0425-y · Cited by 39
Benefits of accumulating versus diminishing cues in recall
Finley, J. R., Benjamin, A. S., Hays, M. J., Bjork, R. A., & Kornell, N. (2011) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.006 · Cited by 42
Understanding the Distributed Practice Effect
Kuepper-Tetzel, C. E. (2014) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000168 · Cited by 52
Park, J., & Jung, Y. (2024) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2024.102200 · Cited by 38
Andergassen, M., Mödritscher, F., & Neumann, G. (2014) · Journal of Learning Analytics · doi:10.18608/jla.2014.11.4 · Cited by 38
Costs and benefits of dropout schedules of test–restudy practice: Implications for student learning
Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.1646 · Cited by 39
Walsh, M. M., Krusmark, M. A., Jastrembski, T., Hansen, D. A., Honn, K. A., & Gunzelmann, G. (2023) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-022-01361-8 · Cited by 35
LI, M., & DEKEYSER, R. (2019) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12580 · Cited by 35
Spaced Digital Education for Health Professionals: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Martinengo, L., Ng, M. S. P., Ng, T. D. R., Ang, Y.-I., Jabir, A. I., Kyaw, B. M., & Car, L. T. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/57760 · Cited by 63
Spacing Effects on Learning and Memory ☆
Carpenter, S. K. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809324-5.21054-7 · Cited by 52
Cognitive learning theory for clinical teaching
McSparron, J. I., Vanka, A., & Smith, C. C. (2018) · The Clinical Teacher · doi:10.1111/tct.12781 · Cited by 50
Mechanisms underlying the spacing effect in learning: A comparison of three computational models.
Walsh, M. M., Gluck, K. A., Glenn Gunzelmann, A., Jastrzembski, T. S., Krusmark, M., Myung, J. I., Pitt, M. A., & Zhou, R. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037/xge0000416 · Cited by 36
Improvements to visual working memory performance with practice and feedback
Adam, K. C. S., & Vogel, E. K. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203279 · Cited by 41
Kuepper-Tetzel, C. E., & Erdfelder, E. (2011) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2011.631550 · Cited by 34
What makes working memory traces stable over time?
Jarjat, G., Hoareau, V., Plancher, G., et al. (2018) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.13668 · Cited by 35
Enhancing the Quality of Student Learning Using Distributed Practice
Wiseheart, M., Küpper-Tetzel, Weston, T., Kim, A. S. N., Kapler, I. V., & Foot‐Seymour, V. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108235631.023 · Cited by 38
Systematic review of distributed practice and retrieval practice in health professions education
Trumble, E., Lodge, J. M., Mandrusiak, A., & Forbes, R. (2023) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-023-10274-3 · Cited by 70
Barrett, T., & Feng, Y. (2020) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107587 · Cited by 37
Effects of task repetition but no transfer of inhibitory control training in healthy adults
Talanow, T., & Ettinger, U. (2018) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.04.016 · Cited by 36
Diminished But Not Forgotten: Effects of Aging on Magnitude of Spacing Effect Benefits
Simone, P. M., Bell, M. C., & Cepeda, N. J. (2012) · The Journals of Gerontology Series B · doi:10.1093/geronb/gbs096 · Cited by 31
Self-citationMixing topics while studying does not enhance learning.
Hausman, H., & Kornell, N. (2014) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.03.003 · Cited by 33
Strategies to Improve Learning and Retention During Training
Roediger, H. L., III, Nestojko, J. F., & Smith, N. S. (2019) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190455132.003.0014 · Cited by 32
Structural Plasticity, Effectual Connectivity, and Memory in Cortex
Knoblauch, A., & Sommer, F. T. (2016) · Frontiers in Neuroanatomy · doi:10.3389/fnana.2016.00063 · Cited by 34
Dependencies between E-Learning Usage Patterns and Learning Results
Mödritscher, F., Andergassen, M., & Neumann, G. (2013) · International Conference on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Technologies · doi:10.1145/2494188.2494206 · Cited by 31
Self-regulated spacing in a massive open online course is related to better learning
Carvalho, P. F., Sana, F., & Yan, V. X. (2020) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-020-0061-1 · Cited by 26
Kerfoot, B. P., Shaffer, K., McMahon, G. T., Baker, H. E., Kirdar, J. A., Kanter, S. L., Corbett, E. C., Berkow, R. L., Krupat, E., & Armstrong, E. G. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3182087bef · Cited by 31
Carpenter, S. K., Mickes, L., Rahman, S., & Fernandez, C. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/xap0000077 · Cited by 32
Riel, J., Lawless, K. A., & Brown, S. W. (2018) · Journal of Learning Analytics · doi:10.18608/jla.2018.51.3 · Cited by 32
Successive Relearning: An Underexplored but Potent Technique for Obtaining and Maintaining Knowledge
Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. T. (2022) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09637214221100484 · Cited by 31
Spacing Effects in Task Repetition Research
Rogers, J. (2022) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12526 · Cited by 29
Four semesters investigating frequency of testing, the testing effect, and transfer of training.
Foss, D. J., & Pirozzolo, J. W. (2017) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000197 · Cited by 30
Geller, J., Still, M. L., Dark, V. J., & Carpenter, S. K. (2018) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-018-0824-6 · Cited by 32
Role of the hippocampus in the spacing effect during memory retrieval
Li, C., & Yang, J. (2020) · Hippocampus · doi:10.1002/hipo.23193 · Cited by 29
Equivalent but not the Same: Teaching and Learning in Full Semester and Condensed Summer Courses
Walsh, K. P., Sanders, M., & Gadgil, S. (2019) · College Teaching · doi:10.1080/87567555.2019.1579702 · Cited by 26
Donker, S. C. M., Vorstenbosch, M. A. T. M., Gerhardus, M. J. T., & Thijssen, D. H. J. (2022) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-021-03075-y · Cited by 29
Fisher, J. S., & Radvansky, G. A. (2019) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2019.104035 · Cited by 33
Duration between rewards controls the rate of behavioral and dopaminergic learning
Burke, D. A., Taylor, A., Jeong, H., Lee, S., Zsembik, L. C. P., Wu, B., Floeder, J. R., Naik, G. A., Chen, R., & Namboodiri, V. M. K. (2026) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-026-02206-2 · Cited by 32
Hahn, W. G., Fairchild, C., & Dowis, W. B. (2013) · Issues in Accounting Education · doi:10.2308/iace-50441 · Cited by 28
The Depletion–Power–Integration–Latency (DPIL) model of spaced and massed repetition
Sikström, S., & Jaber, M. Y. (2012) · Computers & Industrial Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cie.2012.03.005 · Cited by 26
DOES IT MATTER WHEN YOU REVIEW?
Rogers, J., & Cheung, A. (2020) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263120000236 · Cited by 36
Lecture capture: Practical recommendations for students and instructorsPreprint
Nordmann, E., Kuepper-Tetzel, C. E., Robson, L., Phillipson, S., Lipan, G., & McGeorge, P. (2018) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sd7u4 · Cited by 29
Retrieval practice and spacing effects in multi-session treatment of naming impairment in aphasia
Middleton, E. L., Rawson, K. A., & Verkuilen, J. (2019) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2019.07.003 · Cited by 29
Effects of retrieval formats on second language vocabulary learning
Nakata, T. (2016) · International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching · doi:10.1515/iral-2015-0022 · Cited by 30
Justice, L. M., Logan, J. A. R., Jiang, H., & Schmitt, M. B. (2016) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2016_ajslp-15-0058 · Cited by 33
Spacing effects in vocabulary learning: Young EFL learners in focus
Lotfolahi, A. R., & Salehi, H. (2017) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2017.1287391 · Cited by 28
Kang, C., Duncan, G. J., Clements, D. H., Sarama, J. H., & Bailey, D. H. (2018) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000297 · Cited by 37
Benitez, V. L., Zettersten, M., & Wojcik, E. H. (2020) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104961 · Cited by 28
Gerbier, É., & Koenig, O. (2011) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.600806 · Cited by 25
Al-Rawi, W., Easterling, L., & Edwards, P. C. (2015) · Journal of Dental Education · doi:10.1002/j.0022-0337.2015.79.4.tb05902.x · Cited by 27
Why do rereading lag effects depend on test delay?
Rawson, K. A. (2012) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.004 · Cited by 26
Incorporating forgetting in the Personalized, Clustered, Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (PC-BKT) model
Nedungadi, P., & Remya, M. S. (2015) · International Conference on Cognitive Computing and Information Processing · doi:10.1109/ccip.2015.7100688 · Cited by 26
Claus, E. D., Klimaj, S. D., Chavez, R., Martinez, A. D., & Clark, V. P. (2019) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/acer.14111 · Cited by 29
Using Evidence-Based Learning Strategies to Improve Medical Education
Madan, C. R. (2023) · Medical Science Educator · doi:10.1007/s40670-023-01798-9 · Cited by 26
Thompson, C. P., & Hughes, M. A. (2023) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2023.08.028 · Cited by 35
Very Similar Spacing-Effect Patterns in Very Different Learning/Practice Domains
Kornmeier, J., Spitzer, M., & Sosic-Vasic, Z. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090656 · Cited by 25
Self-Directed Learning Online: An Opportunity to Binge
LaTour, K. A., & Noel, H. (2021) · Journal of Marketing Education · doi:10.1177/0273475320987295 · Cited by 34
Muñoz, C., Pattemore, A., & Avello, D. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2022.2113898 · Cited by 27
Levy, J. E., Ely, K., Lagasca, G., Kausar, H., Patel, D., Andersen, S., Georges, C., & Simanton, E. G. (2023) · Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development · doi:10.1177/23821205231205389 · Cited by 26
Adaptive Learning is Hard: Challenges, Nuances, and Trade-offs in Modeling
Pelánek, R. (2024) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00400-6 · Cited by 36
The effects of frequency, duration, and intensity on L2 learning through Duolingo
Sudina, E., & Plonsky, L. (2023) · Journal of Second Language Studies · doi:10.1075/jsls.00021.plo · Cited by 33
Arthur, W., Day, E. A., Villado, A. J., Boatman, P. R., Kowollik, V., Bennett, W. R., & Bhupatkar, A. (2010) · Human Performance · doi:10.1080/08959285.2010.515277 · Cited by 25
Long-term spacing effect benefits in developmental amnesia: Case experiments in rehabilitation.
Green, J. L., Weston, T., Wiseheart, M., & Rosenbaum, R. S. (2014) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/neu0000070 · Cited by 25
Choffin, B., Popineau, F., Bourda, Y., & Vie, J.-J. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.06873 · Cited by 66
Au, J., Smith-Peirce, R. N., Carbone, E., Moon, A., Evans, M., Jonides, J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01839 · Cited by 24
Polack, C. W., & Miller, R. R. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Learning and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xan0000323 · Cited by 36
Glass, A. L. (2009) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410903310674 · Cited by 24
Hernick, M. (2015) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/ajpe79797 · Cited by 25
Conceptualising “dose” in paediatric language interventions: Current findings and future directions
Justice, L. M. (2018) · International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1080/17549507.2018.1454985 · Cited by 24
Collaborative Memory: A Selective Review of Data and Theory
Rajaram, S., & Maswood, R. (2017) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809324-5.21050-x · Cited by 25
Applying spaced practice in the schools to teach math vocabulary
Petersen‐Brown, S., Lundberg, A. R., Ray, J. E., Dela Paz, I. N., Riss, C. L., & Panahon, C. J. (2019) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.22248 · Cited by 24
Advances in balance assessment and balance training for diabetes
Najafi, B., Bharara, M., Talal, T. K., & Armstrong, D. G. (2012) · Diabetes Management · doi:10.2217/dmt.12.38 · Cited by 23
UK longitudinal integrated clerkships: where are we now?
McKeown, A., Mollaney, J., Ahuja, N., Parekh, R., & Kumar, S. (2019) · Education for Primary Care · doi:10.1080/14739879.2019.1653228 · Cited by 23
The influence of teaching learning techniques on students’ long-term learning behavior
Luo, B. (2019) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1567557 · Cited by 24
Ebersbach, M., & Nazari, K. B. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00811 · Cited by 23
Effectiveness of mind mapping for learning in a real educational setting
Gavens, N., Doignon‐Camus, N., Chaillou, A.-C., Zeitler, A., & Popa-Roch, M. (2020) · The Journal of Experimental Education · doi:10.1080/00220973.2020.1848765 · Cited by 22
Richter, J., Scheiter, K., Eder, T., Huettig, F., & Keutel, C. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243060 · Cited by 22
Schrank, Z. (2016) · Teaching Sociology · doi:10.1177/0092055x15624745 · Cited by 22
Designing and evaluating an online course to support transition to university mathematics
Kinnear, G., Wood, A. K., & Gratwick, R. (2021) · International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/0020739x.2021.1962554 · Cited by 24
Working Memory Training and Transfer: Theoretical and Practical Considerations
Jaeggi, S. M., & Buschkuehl, M. (2014) · Springer proceedings in mathematics & statistics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07755-0_2 · Cited by 24
Making a lecture stick: The Effect of spaced instruction on knowledge retention in medical education
Timmer, M. C. J., Steendijk, P., Arend, S. M., & Versteeg, M. (2020) · Medical Science Educator · doi:10.1007/s40670-020-00995-0 · Cited by 20
A Review of the Application of Distributed Practice Principles to Naming Treatment in Aphasia
Middleton, E. L., Schuchard, J., & Rawson, K. A. (2020) · Topics in Language Disorders · doi:10.1097/tld.0000000000000202 · Cited by 23
Temporal patterns and dynamics of e-learning usage in medical education
Panzarasa, P., Kujawski, B., Hammond, E. J., & Roberts, C. M. (2015) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9407-4 · Cited by 21
Spacing of cue-approach training leads to better maintenance of behavioral change
Bakkour, A., Botvinik‐Nezer, R., Cohen, N., Hover, A. M., Poldrack, R. A., & Schönberg, T. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0201580 · Cited by 20
Kadengye, D., Ceulemans, E., & den Noortgate, W. V. (2013) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0413-3 · Cited by 16
The negative repetition effect.
Mulligan, N. W., & Peterson, D. J. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0031789 · Cited by 21
The Effect of Cumulative Tests on the Final Exam
Beagley, J. E., & Capaldi, M. (2016) · PRIMUS · doi:10.1080/10511970.2016.1194343 · Cited by 20
Lag effects in grammar learning: A desirable difficulties perspective
Serfaty, J., & Serrano, R. (2022) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716421000631 · Cited by 23
Metadata
- Authors
- Cepeda, N. J., Vul, E., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., & Pashler, H.
- Affiliations
- York University (CA)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- University of South Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pashler, Harold
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-11
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1095-1102
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2169419728
- Cited by
- 631
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 44
- FWCI
- 5.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- escholarship.org
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0542013, 0720375)
- U.S. Department of Education
- Institute of Education Sciences
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- spacing effect, retention, test delay, spaced learning, long-term memory
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Retention, Psychology, Space Perception, Time Factors, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-12, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-12 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
